Kenosha Shooter Kyle Rittenhouse

[arewethereyet]

Stalking is wrong period

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Stalking is wrong period

Jaysus, you sound JUST like my ex-girlfriends.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

Stalking is wrong period

And, frankly, this is why I give Martin more benefit of the doubt.

Zimmerman seems to have assumed Trayvon Martin could have Only been in that place for nefarious purposes (in reality, his father’s fiancée lived there.) Given that Martin was unarmed, had no criminal record, is not known to have committed any violent crimes, and showed no sign of any plans to commit crimes of any sort that day, this was most likely a faulty assumption. One he escalated unnecessarily to the point of killing him.

Meanwhile, from Trayvon’s perspective, we have this strange intimidating white* man who seems to be stalking him for no good reason and went out of his way to confront him. It’s not hard to imagine that Trayvon might have been in the right in this situation. At least his paranoia was somewhat justified.





Can’t say I could prove my hypothesis in a court of law, and it makes sense that Zimmerman got off, since we only had his word for what happened, and the lawyers made it just plausible enough to get him a not guilty verdict.

*Yes, I am well aware that Zimmerman's mother was Peruvian, which makes him Hispanic. That said, there are parts in his interrogation where he explicitly identifies as white. I think that, for him, the two identities aren't quite as mutually exclusive as most people would think.

I notice you flatly ignore that Martin escalated this event to a physical altercation. (As indicated by physical evidence). I guess you have to, to be able to stick to the "he's an angel" theory - rather than he was a hot-headed punk who started swinging......

---

Stalking is wrong period

Jaysus, you sound JUST like my ex-girlfriends.

Boru

Do they get "ex" status before or after the PPO?

[Angrboda]

Okay.  Now make an argument from that fact without running afoul of the genetic fallacy.  I'm not even sure that what you say is true.

It's generic fallacy to simply point out that the original intent of fire arms was military in nature . 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm

Um, what?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nonsense.  A gun can be used to procure food, to target shoot, for trophy hunting, as a threat, etc.

With a bit of ingenuity, there is nothing that has only one use value. This why I sometimes use books to prop up a table, or a handy shoe to bang in a nail.

I do agree about the fetishism, thought.  There are plenty of people who own objects out of some sort of emotional or status value beyond that object's utility.

Boru

Guns were invented for war hunting was a later development . Handguns and Assault Rifle were designed with human targets in mind . That is simply a fact .

So what? That doesn’t mean that they’re single-use items. Bows and arrows were originally designed to kill animals, but there are plenty of archers around today who’ve never done that. Tin openers were originally designed to (big surprise) open tins, but I’ve got one that makes a dandy fipple scraper.

Bel’s point was that the only USE for guns is to kill people, and that’s not true. And that is also ‘simply a fact’.

Boru

[Rev. Rye]

Or I could be pointing out that the injuries Martin inflicted on Zimmerman could themselves be considered self-defense. Think about it: a stranger is following you around at night and he chases you down a dark alleyway. Tell me, you're a strong believer in self-defense, does this sound like a situation where you could justifiably retaliate against someone who very likely means to do you harm? Is it legal? Do you at least see where someone who would do such a thing is coming from? Because, frankly, in this case, I can, and in the absence of evidence that he actually had any criminal intent that night, I see no reason to doubt that this could have been why he hit Zimmerman.

Martin could have swung first, but then again, Zimmerman might have just slapped him before Martin punched him, or maybe Zimmerman made a swing at him and Trayvon reacted before Zimmerman actually hit him. Only two people know what really happened: one's dead and the other's word, frankly, cannot be trusted.

[brewer]

Rehashing events from over 12 years ago that are nowhere near similar,........... good times!

[The Architect Of Fate]

Guns were invented for war hunting was a later development . Handguns and Assault Rifle were designed with human targets in mind . That is simply a fact .

So what? That doesn’t mean that they’re single-use items. Bows and arrows were originally designed to kill animals, but there are plenty of archers around today who’ve never done that. Tin openers were originally designed to (big surprise) open tins, but I’ve got one that makes a dandy fipple scraper.

Bel’s point was that the only USE for guns is to kill people, and that’s not true. And that is also ‘simply a fact’.

It's a single use item by intent the mere fact you can modify something does not disprove that fact . But this seems like an impasse so i'll just agree to disagree .

---

It's generic fallacy to simply point out that the original intent of fire arms was military in nature . 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm

Um, what?

I was responding to the charge i fell afoul of the generic fallacy . Which i pointed out  simply pointing out fire arms were military in nature does not do .And the wiki article answers your statement doubting if that fact was true .

---

Stalking is wrong period

Jaysus, you sound JUST like my ex-girlfriends.

Boru

What?

---

Or I could be pointing out that the injuries Martin inflicted on Zimmerman could themselves be considered self-defense. Think about it: a stranger is following you around at night and he chases you down a dark alleyway. Tell me, you're a strong believer in self-defense, does this sound like a situation where you could justifiably retaliate against someone who very likely means to do you harm? Is it legal? Do you at least see where someone who would do such a thing is coming from? Because, frankly, in this case, I can, and in the absence of evidence that he actually had any criminal intent that night, I see no reason to doubt that this could have been why he hit Zimmerman.

Martin could have swung first, but then again, Zimmerman might have just slapped him before Martin punched him, or maybe Zimmerman made a swing at him and Trayvon reacted before Zimmerman actually hit him. Only two people know what really happened: one's dead and the other's word, frankly, cannot be trusted.

But Rye people are allowed to follow you around and not allowed to do anything about it , And Zimmerman could not have simply not followed him . That's asking too much .

[paulpablo]

I don't know. I kind of see it like the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman seems to be a terrible person, and he shouldn't have been following Martin, but he broke no laws in doing so and was rightly found not guilty because it seems to have been a justifiable killing in self defense.

He broke no laws? He murdered an innocent, unarmed teen who was doing nothing to threaten him. And he did it in cold blood and in a premeditated fashion.

Just because the state of Florida has declared itself without law doesn't mean Zimmerman's not a law breaker.

---

And, honestly, looking at the case, the most charitable interpretation of Zimmerman’s actions I think is plausible is that he might have just been that paranoid and an innocent black teen died because of it. And that’s just be being extremely charitable towards him.

And if Zimmerman is really that paranoid, then there's no way he should ever be left out of a secure mental institution, except for to be buried.

---

If the one guy he killed was a child molester then that's cool.

If the other guy who he killed was attacking him first I hope he gets away with all this.

Go fuck yourself and stop spreading far right slander.

Go fuck your mother.

[Angrboda]

Um, what?

I was responding to the charge i fell afoul of the generic fallacy . Which i pointed out  simply pointing out fire arms were military in nature does not do .And the wiki article answers your statement doubting if that fact was true .

First of all, it's the 'genetic' fallacy, not the 'generic' fallacy. And second, there was no charge that you had fallen afoul of it. I asked if you could make an argument from the fact you noted without running afoul of the genetic fallacy because if you can't, then none of your conclusions from that fact are valid and any conclusions that you draw are non sequiturs. I'm not even claiming that you can't make such an argument. I simply challenged you to do so. Instead, we get this nonsense in reply from you. Is English your first language, or is there a language barrier here that I am unaware of there being?